Iraq – Defenseweekhttps://defweek.com
Military and defense analyzes, comments, opinions and ratingsWed, 15 Jan 2020 18:08:25 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.1https://defweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/cropped-fav-defweek-orange-32x32.pngIraq – Defenseweekhttps://defweek.com
3232Tops and roots: the United States may deprive Iraq of military assistancehttps://defweek.com/2020/01/15/tops-and-roots-the-united-states-may-deprive-iraq-of-military-assistance/
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:08:24 +0000https://defweek.com/?p=970If the Iraqi authorities decide to demand the withdrawal of American troops from the country, the United States will stop military aid to Baghdad]]>

The United States may reduce Congressional-approved military assistance to Iraq – a quarter of a billion dollars a year. According to US media, this is how Washington intends to respond to a possible demand by Baghdad to withdraw the US Armed Forces from the country.

If the Iraqi authorities decide to demand the withdrawal of American troops from the country, the United States will stop military aid to Baghdad. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal, citing electronic correspondence between the Pentagon and the Department of State.

Assistance in the amount of $ 250 million annually has already been approved by Congress and has been paid since 2017. In addition, the State Department’s Middle East Affairs Bureau intends to request the White House to cancel $ 100 million in military assistance to the Iraqi army in 2021.

A final decision on this issue has not yet been made.

A week ago, Reuters reported that the headquarters of Operation Unshakable Decision, a coalition led by the United States, had sent a letter to the Iraqi military. The message said that Washington was ready to leave Iraq.

Shortly thereafter, General Mark Millie, head of the US Army Chiefs of Staff, said the letter was a draft.

“It was a mistake, it was not signed, it should not have been made public,” the US military explained. According to him, the letter was poorly worded and the Americans do not intend to leave Iraq. US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also disavowed the provisions of a letter handed over to the Iraqi military.

Finally, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Washington was ready to continue dialogue with Baghdad over the proper structure of the US military presence in Iraq.

Representatives of the Shiite majority voted mostly in favor – parliamentarians decided to stop work under the international agreement on the “anti-terrorist coalition”. Kurdish and Sunni deputies did not attend the parliamentary meeting.

The hearings were held amid a sharp aggravation of the situation in Iraq after the December US airstrikes on the territory of the country – the planes attacked the Kataib Hezbollah group, killing about 25 militants. The U.S. Department of Defense said the operation was in response to regular attacks on US military facilities in Iraq. On December 31, an attack was made on the American embassy in Baghdad – no one was killed, but the security of the diplomatic mission was seriously strengthened. 5 days later, the Iranian military leader Kassem Suleimani was killed by an American missile.

US President Donald Trump said after the Iraqi parliament meeting that the Americans would not leave Iraq, where they invaded in 2003, until Baghdad paid “many billions of dollars” for the air base built during those years.

January 9, Trump called on NATO to “deeper involvement” in the problems of the Middle East against the backdrop of an aggravation of the conflict with Iran. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg agreed that the alliance should be more involved in the situation. An alliance statement released after the conversation said that NATO “can do more for regional stability and the fight against international terrorism.”

It is worth adding that in 2018, Washington began to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq. This happened after the Iraqi authorities announced victory over the Islamic State (Islamic State, an organization banned in the Russian Federation), Reuters reported.

According to a Pentagon report published last November, the number of US troops stationed in Iraq at the end of September was 8,892. A senior Iraqi official told AP that, according to the initial agreement between Baghdad and Washington, 60% of US troops stationed in the country will be withdrawn from Iraq.

According to this plan, about 4 thousand American troops will remain in the country, who will continue to train the Iraqi army.

Earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the Iraqi military would need American training for many more years. The United States has been holding its troops in Iraq since 2003, when it occupied the country as part of an international coalition, overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. After that, a long and bloody civil war began on the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The author of the article is Ivan Apuleev. The original article has been published in Gazeta.ru. Translation and editing by Defenseweek’s team.

]]>Missile strike at a military base near Baghdadhttps://defweek.com/2020/01/14/missile-strike-at-a-military-base-near-baghdad/
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:34:04 +0000https://defweek.com/?p=907Al-Taji Iraqi military base north of Baghdad was rocket fired on Tuesday, January 14, the television channel Al Hadath reported]]>

Al-Taji Iraqi military base north of Baghdad was rocket fired on Tuesday, January 14, the television channel Al Hadath reported.

It is noted that at the base are American troops. The attack was quite intense, media reported. Two rockets exploded at the base. No further details are provided.

On January 12, it became known that the Iraqi air base Balad in the province of Salah al-Din, where US troops are stationed, was subjected to a missile attack.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed outrage at this. According to him, such violations of the sovereignty of Iraq by groups “disloyal to the Iraqi government” should be stopped.

On January 8, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), in response to the assassination of General Kassem Suleimani by the US Air Force on the night of January 3, launched rocket attacks on US military bases in Iraq.

On January 5, Baghdad passed a decree calling for the withdrawal of US troops and the international coalition from the country. The Americans refused to comply.

]]>‘Scare each other’: how the US and Iran are fighting for Baghdadhttps://defweek.com/2020/01/13/scare-each-other-how-the-us-and-iran-are-fighting-for-baghdad/
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:25:00 +0000https://defweek.com/?p=710Two days after the assassination of a general in Baghdad, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.]]>

The original article has been published in Gazeta.ru. Translation and editing by Defenseweek’s team.

The killing by the Americans in Iraq of Iranian General Kassem Suleimani not only raised the threat of war between Iran and the United States, but also created tension in Washington’s relations with Baghdad. On both sides, conflicting information is received daily about the withdrawal of US troops from the country, which Tehran insists on.

How Iraqi Sovereignty Becomes US Error

On January 5, two days after the assassination of a general in Baghdad, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Parliament also supported a ban on the transfer of foreign forces across Iraq. Baghdad is sure: the incident was a serious attempt on the part of the United States on the sovereignty of the country.

“Despite the external and internal difficulties that we may encounter, this option is fundamentally better for Iraq …

This will help reformat relations with the USA and other states, maintain friendly relations on the basis of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, ”said Acting Prime Minister of Iraq Abdel Mahdi.

Soon, the media published an official letter from the head of the US Armed Forces Task Force in Iraq, Brigadier General William Seeley to the Iraqi Joint Operational Command. It reports that US forces will be relocated to “prepare for further movement,” in recognition of Baghdad’s sovereignty.

However, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper immediately denied the information about the forthcoming withdrawal of troops, saying that the letter was just a draft with unsuccessful speech. The head of the United States Joint Staff Committee, Mark Millie called the document a mistake.

A more eloquent reaction followed from US President Donald Trump – if the withdrawal of troops takes place in a not very friendly atmosphere, Washington will impose “sanctions on the Iraqi side that they have never seen before,” he said.

“Compared to this, Iranian sanctions will seem a little boring,” the American leader added.

He also said that US troops would not leave Iraq until Baghdad paid Washington for the constructed airbase.

“We have a very expensive air base there. Its construction cost billions of dollars <…> We won’t leave until they pay us for it, ”the head of the White House emphasized.

On the eve of and. about. Iraqi Prime Minister Adele Abd al-Mahdi demanded that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo send representatives to develop mechanisms for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. The State Department responded by saying that if it sent a delegation to Baghdad, it would only discuss other issues, for example, to discuss how to deploy its troops.

“At the moment, any delegation that will be sent to Iraq will be busy discussing how to renew our strategic partnership – not by discussing the withdrawal of troops, but how to properly and appropriately deploy our forces in the Middle East,” the State Department said in a statement. “Nevertheless, negotiations between the US and Iraqi authorities need to be held not only about security, but also about financial, economic and diplomatic partnerships.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Washington is ready to continue dialogue with Baghdad on the proper structure of the US military presence in Iraq.

As Dmitry Frolovsky, an independent expert on the Middle East, notes in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru, for Washington, the withdrawal of troops is an extremely undesirable scenario.

“From a formal point of view, the United States must obey the decision of the people of Iraq and withdraw troops. On the other hand, of course, the United States understands that if they withdraw troops from Iraq, they lose that strategic bridgehead to work in Syria, to work in Iran, and, in general, actually lose the opportunity to influence the region. From a formal point of view, they must obey, from a strategic point of view, from the point of view of geopolitics, this is extremely unprofitable for them, ”the expert notes.

In Iraq, 5,000 US troops are now stationed, mainly acting as advisers. US forces have been in Iraq since 2003, when Washington invaded the country and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Formally, the military is now stationed there to resolve internal conflicts.

In this case, according to Frolovsky, the United States may well act in this case as they see fit.

“It all looks rather strange, the Americans have built democracy in Iraq, and now they do not comply with the will of the people,” the expert emphasizes. – Can Americans refuse to withdraw troops? Quite. And it seems to me, given how Trump, as the president of the United States, complies with the existing framework and norms, he can violate this legislation, and the Americans may well remain in Iraq even despite some kind of resolution inside the Iraqi parliament.

At the same time, the United States can put pressure on Iraq, both economic and political. At the same time, everyone understands that in Iraq the Americans are very unpopular.”

At the same time, the potential withdrawal of troops from Iraq is of concern to Europe, which is confident that if the US military leaves the country, the Islamic State terrorist group (IG, banned in the Russian Federation) can strengthen its positions.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a joint statement on January 6, urging Baghdad to provide the necessary support for the US-led anti-terror coalition.

Yankee go home

Although the long-term consequences of Suleimani’s death remain difficult to predict, one thing is clear – Iran’s influence on Iraq is enormous. At the same time, as the president of the Institute of the Middle East, Evgeny Satanovsky, notes in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru, at this stage, neither the United States nor Iraq have taken serious action.

“They are still exchanging verbal concussions. Withdrawal of troops is an extremely lengthy procedure. The fact that it was announced does not say anything yet. The same sanctions – have not yet been introduced. Well, a friend’s friend is scared, the expert notes. Iraq has nowhere to take what it takes from Iran. And this Trump knows very well, he has long been explained. Whether President Trump wants it or not, Iraq cannot break off relations with Iran.”

Powerful leverage, for example, is electricity.

In 1991, after the US military operation Desert Storm, the power supply system in Baghdad was severely damaged. The energy industry was further destroyed in 1996 by a missile strike by Washington on Iraq. Then many power plants were disabled or damaged. The industry was also negatively affected by international economic sanctions introduced after Iraq seized neighboring Kuwait in 1990. The situation led to the theft of cables and wires. Power supply was interrupted for a while. In May 2018, parts of Baghdad received electricity for only three hours a day. The ongoing shortage of electricity triggered massive anti-government protests, which continued until 2019.

The Iraqi government turned to Iran for help.

In 2017, Iraqi officials signed a long-term contract for the supply of natural gas with the Iranians. Iran currently accounts for between 30% and 40% of the electricity consumed in Iraq.

The United States really understands how much Baghdad needs a neighbor. For example, the fact that Washington, announcing the withdrawal from the nuclear deal and promising to impose sanctions against all who continue to cooperate with Iran, has repeatedly made an exception for Baghdad. The US administration allowed Iraq to continue purchasing energy from Iran, bypassing its sanctions. Last year and. about. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi categorically stated that “Iraq will not be part of the sanctions regime against Iran.”

At the same time, according to The Hill, a few months before the assassination of Suleymani, the Trump administration put pressure on Baghdad to stop buying gas and electricity from his neighbor. These efforts met with strong resistance from Iraqi officials, who understand that any reduction in supplies could trigger new anti-government protests.

Despite the history of relations between Iran and Iraq, their cooperation in the field of electricity is today one of the most important factors. Baghdad’s dependence has also become another testament to Iran’s authority in the region.

As Dmitry Frolovsky notes, Tehran is quite skillfully using its influence, and not only through leverage.

“Firstly, Iran very skillfully introduces its agents of influence within the structure of Iraq. They have a very effective work at the party level, they work very well at the level of ideology.

Therefore, yes, they still have influence, but in this particular case, it seems to me that the factor influenced that the attitude towards the Americans in Iraq is very negative, and it will most likely remain that way, ”the expert said, noting that Tehran will continue to exert its pressure to Baghdad in this situation. – The part of Iraq that makes decisions, it is somehow controlled or under great influence from Iran. And, accordingly, Iran is beneficial for the United States to leave Iraq. Yes, there will definitely be pressure [from Tehran]. ”

Both experts draw attention to the split within Iraq between religious and national groups, which hold different positions on most key political issues. Moreover, according to Yevgeny Satanovsky, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis disagree on relations with Iran and the United States. However, Dmitry Frolovsky is sure that anti-Americanism has become the theme that unites most Iraqis. According to the expert, Baghdad will continue to insist on the withdrawal of US troops.

Although US efforts to play a leading role in the post-Saddam state system are largely in ruins, Washington is still involved in fighting Tehran for influence. At the same time, Dmitry Frolovsky points out, there is no reason to talk about the weakening of the US in the entire Middle East region.

“The US will not have a clear weakening in the region, because if we look at the map, the United States has more than 50 thousand people deployed in the region. In terms of military presence, the United States remains quite strong. At the same time, we understand that the USA has a technological advantage, that is, an advantage in everything – hard power – with any other power, including Russia. Washington has it unconditionally, Frolovsky notes. – There is no country that could compensate for its influence. And at the same time you need to understand that the US is somehow hegemonic, they were and are in the Middle East. Moreover, the confrontation with Iran may cause a round of the fact that the US will increase its military presence. ”

]]>Iraq: The next misjudgment by the United Stateshttps://defweek.com/2020/01/06/iraq-the-next-misjudgment-by-the-united-states/
Mon, 06 Jan 2020 05:42:54 +0000https://defweek.com/?p=686Iranian ability to use militias to attack the American embassy, ​​with Iraqi support, made it clear how much power Iran has in Iraq]]>

The author of the article is Thomas Pany. Thomas Pany studied political science with Kurt Sontheimer at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, plus modern history and Semitic studies. The original article has been published in Telepolis. Translation and editing by Defenseweek’s team.

Iran is held responsible for the violent protests at the US embassy in Baghdad with arson. Some things are overlooked

The easiest explanation of the current escalations in Iraq can be found in lines like these: “Iran’s ability to use militias to attack the American embassy, ​​with Iraqi support, made it clear how much power Iran has in Iraq.” Different flags can be seen in the photo with which the New York Times illustrates the cited heading for their article.

The Iraqi flag in the center of the picture is very prominent. To the left of this, a group of young men climbing over a wall of the US embassy in Baghdad shows yellow and green flags referring to militias belonging to al-Hashd asch-Sha’bi (German: People’s Mobilization Forces). An Iraqi flag is waving here too. On the right edge of the picture you can see a US flag crossed out in black, which is definitely not supposed to convey any sign of sympathy.

Why look at the flags? Because he draws attention to contradictions to the reading of the American newspaper, which takes a certain degree of clarity. The opposite thesis is that the protests at the US embassy that resulted in an attack on its territory and an arson attack are anti-US protests. And this is not adequately explained with the activity of Iranian string pullers, but rather channeled through propaganda.

It is striking, observers who are critical of the United States’ statement of events in recent days, that media reported “Iraqi protests” in the weeks before when they turned against Iranian institutions or targets. As soon as protests are directed against the US presence and its influence, the language regulation is that it is not “Iraqi protests”, but an action covered by Iran.

A US retaliatory strike

From the other point of view of the events, as can be seen in the example of Belgian journalist Elijah J. Magnier, the “incident” that underlies the riots at the US embassy at the turn of the year is described differently. It is about the attack by the US Air Force on targets in Iraq last Sunday evening, which the US government portrays as retribution. The target was named the Kata’ib Hezbollah militia, which the US leadership had previously blamed for a missile attack in which an American was killed. The militia itself denies that it is responsible for the fatal rocket attack.

It wasn’t a regular U.S. Army soldier, but a member of a private security company. There is no need to explain further that the death of a US citizen as a result of an attack by the militia, which has made no secret of its long-standing animosity towards the US, is sensitive to the US leadership. The US military was beginning to react with a hard blow.

This is then backed up by a lineup, which now assumes the “taunts” between the US military and the Shiite militia Kata’ib Hezbollah, of which in the past it was often read, on the part of the Kata’ib Hezbollah concrete attacks. If one believes this line-up, the US military had a solid reason to attack the militia.

The above-mentioned journalist Magnier criticizes the attacks as propaganda. On the other hand, other publications also note that the Kata’ib Hezollah is aggressive, which in many places is said to have closer links to Iran’s revolutionary guards.

For the assessment of the events of the past few days, however, it is equally important: First, the retaliatory attack by the United States did not aim at the location where the missile attack, which was fatal to the American, but at a base in Qaim over 100 kilometers away (see, for example, the overview map in the New York Times), where secondly not only Kata’ib Hezbollah militias were fatally hit, but also other members of the Iraqi security forces (who may have been hit even more than Kata’ib Hezbollah militia members). According to journalist Magnier, members of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police are among the victims.

The reaction

The US attack triggered the protests, which led to an aggressive attack on the embassy in Baghdad. The statement, which leads to a clear blame for Iran, is too simple, too narrow and partisan. It only leads to further hardening in the front between the United States and Iran because it creates a mood.

It should be noted that Iran not only responds defensively to the US “maximum pressure” strategy, but also has a more aggressive strategy up its sleeve. It emphasizes not only that they will resist sanctions and the economic war and consider evasive maneuvers and work on them, but also that they themselves have military options to hit the United States sensitively – for which the U.S. military presence in Iraq and neighboring Syria actually does Set goals. Iran does not act harmlessly.

But the US attack on Sunday evening also shows that the US military is being rough-headed. In the US administration there have long been opponents of the al-Hashd al-Shah’bi militias who see this as only an extended arm of the leadership in Tehran. This is a condensed view that is being used politically aggressively, as illustrated by a Twitter posting by U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo. He speaks of Iranian terrorists, and he claims to place no value on the accuracy of his images.

The USA itself showed that there is another practical, pragmatic approach to the Shiite militias in Iraq when they fought together with these militias as ground forces against IS in Iraq.

And it is also the case that the fight against IS in Iraq, which was launched with much greater intensity in 2014 after Baghdad was in danger, only led to the United States again having a considerable troop presence in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government could have. The formation of the Shiite people’s mobilization forces also took place this year – following an appeal by the influential Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is not a representative of Iranian interests but represents an independent Iraq.

A special political playing field

The al-Hashd al-Sha’bi militias are part of the Iraqi security forces. Steam hammer policy – with demands for targeted killings – does not lead to viable solutions. The US government will not get far when it comes to dissolving the al-Hashd al-Sha’bi militias, and that is certainly not only due to Iran, but to Iraqi interests. The U.S. military presence in Iraq is also at stake. In the current climate, corresponding demands are the order of the day.

Iraq has been a very special “political playing field” between Iran and the United States for years, where both are trying to exert their influence. This can be seen every time a new government is formed in Baghdad. The executive head of government, al-Mahdi, will soon be replaced. It will be interesting to see what political art both influential powers, in conjunction with the Iraqi politically powerful forces and political figures, are able to give the country a chance to free itself from the tricky current situation.

The protests that have been going on in the country for many weeks have their main trigger not in the politically fueled confrontation between the United States and Iran, but in economic hardships, corruption and other dysfunctionalities that are better addressed together.